Octavius D. Alexander v. State of Indiana

Citation: Not availableDocket: 19A-CR-244

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; October 11, 2019; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Octavius D. Alexander was convicted of Level 5 felony operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, following a prior conviction for operating while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury. He appealed this conviction, raising two primary issues concerning the legality of the traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment and Indiana's Constitution. 

On May 19, 2017, Officer Grant Leroux initiated a traffic stop after observing Alexander's vehicle stop at an intersection and signal a right turn inadequately. Upon interacting with Alexander, Officer Leroux detected an odor of alcohol and called Officer Matthew Meeks for assistance. A canine sniff of the vehicle yielded no narcotics. Alexander admitted to having consumed alcohol, exhibited signs of intoxication, and failed two of three field sobriety tests. He consented to a blood draw, which indicated a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15.

The State charged Alexander with multiple offenses, including a Level 5 felony for operating while intoxicated due to his prior conviction. Alexander's motion to suppress evidence and statements made post-stop, alleging lack of reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, was denied by the trial court after a hearing. The court affirmed the conviction on appeal.

On November 27, 2018, a bench trial resulted in Alexander's conviction for operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, following a prior conviction for operating while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury. Alexander maintained a continuing objection regarding evidence obtained during a traffic stop, as per his motion to suppress. On January 11, 2019, the court sentenced him to four years total: one year executed in the Indiana Department of Correction, two years on community corrections, and one year suspended to probation. The trial court either found him not guilty on remaining counts or merged them due to double jeopardy.

Alexander's appeal centers on the admission of evidence from the traffic stop, which he argued violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court has broad discretion on evidence admission, which is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The ultimate legality of the search or seizure, however, is determined de novo. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and a traffic stop constitutes a seizure that must adhere to its standards.

In this case, the traffic stop was initiated because Alexander failed to signal his intention to turn at least 200 feet prior to the intersection, violating Indiana Code 9-21-8-25. Although Alexander did not dispute his failure to signal, he contended the stop was unconstitutional, arguing that the State did not demonstrate that compliance with the statute was feasible. He referenced the case of Rhodes v. State, where the trial court granted a motion to suppress due to ambiguities regarding signaling requirements. However, the specifics of Alexander's case indicate a clear violation of the signaling statute.

A review of the trial court’s decision confirmed it was backed by substantial evidence, with reasonable inferences favoring that decision. The officer testified that Rhodes had his turn signal on for about 150 feet before turning, but it was unclear if he had traveled at least 200 feet prior to initiating the turn. The trial court's motion to suppress was upheld, as the State could not demonstrate that Rhodes was in violation of the signaling statute. If Rhodes’s testimony was accepted, he was required to pull over immediately after the officer activated his emergency lights, leading to the conclusion that the stop was inappropriate.

In contrast, the State argued that Officer Leroux’s stop of Alexander was justified based on the precedent set in Peak v. State, where the officer had reasonable suspicion based on Peak's failure to signal sufficiently before turning. In this case, unlike Rhodes, there were no evidentiary disputes regarding Alexander's failure to signal adequately in advance of his turn. Therefore, the legality of the stop was assessed as a matter of law, confirming that Officer Leroux was justified in initiating the traffic stop.

Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure, requiring an evaluation of the reasonableness of the stop based on the totality of circumstances. The analysis indicated that the intersection in question was several blocks from another intersection, suggesting that Alexander could have signaled his turn from a distance greater than 200 feet prior to the turn.

Alexander argued that there was minimal concern for suspicion prior to the traffic stop by Officer Leroux, as there was no evidence of driving under the influence. However, Officer Leroux had observed a traffic violation, justifying the stop. Alexander claimed the stop was overly intrusive due to a canine sniff, yet he failed to provide evidence showing that the sniff prolonged the stop or impeded his movement. The court referenced **State v. Gibson**, confirming that a canine sniff of the vehicle's exterior does not violate constitutional rights. Additionally, Alexander argued that the circumstances did not warrant significant law enforcement action, as there were no nearby vehicles or pedestrians, and he signaled his turn for a few seconds before executing it. Nonetheless, the court stated that the enforcement of traffic laws is not contingent on situational factors, allowing officers to initiate stops for traffic law enforcement or to investigate reasonable suspicion of intoxication. The court concluded that the evidence supported the officer's actions, affirming that the traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution. Alexander's failure to signal properly before turning provided sufficient reason for the traffic stop, and the trial court's decision to admit evidence was upheld. The ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Indiana.